Can the state be held to account for Repeat offenders.

JimiTime

If for instance, a burglar is caught and then released only to reoffend. Can the victim hold the state or judiciary to account, or sue them etc?

Procrastastudy

Have a look at the situation post Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) this should go someway to answering your question.

You are essentially looking as some of the basic tenants of negligence - if you can get access to a copy of Principles or Irish Torts by John Healy the chapter (3) is very accessible.

Simple answer is probably not but there could be some very specific exceptions.

NoQuarter

People are caught and released in accordance with the law. So you would essentially be using the law to sue the law. No idea what you would find in a tort book to guide you to an answer

The best I can see a citizen could hope to do is challenge the law the person was released on but that could open up the floodgates to consequences I cant really imagine right now. Because im too lazy to.

Procrastastudy

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 All ER 238.

The House of Lords accepted that the police could be held liable in negligence to persons injured as a direct result of their acts or omissions.

Obviously the case wasn't a success that is just a tiny extract of an English decision, about personal injury (not economic loss) and about the police - I'd just like to stretch it to the bounds of madness in saying that perhaps an argument could be made, that in failing to deal with an offender in a very specific set of circumstances the state could he held accountable.

NoQuarter

ScouseMouse

Interesting subject.

There was a case recently where a judge sentenced someone to, say 5 years.

They were early released for whatever reason, and they offended again. I believe the judge demanded to know why and how he was out again.

So judge says imprison for 5 years, but they were released. Is the prison liable here?

Procrastastudy

Just make the hole bigger.

Procrastastudy

superscouse wrote: »

Interesting subject.

There was a case recently where a judge sentenced someone to, say 5 years.

They were early released for whatever reason, and did the offended again. I believe the judge demanded to know why and how he was out again.

So judge says imprison for 5 years, but they were released. Is the prison liable here?

Almost certainly not - the state would be my (outrageous :P) contention but as you can see it's not gathering much support.

The floodgates argument would likely stop any argument dead in its tracks if it even got that far.

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Just make the hole bigger.

Challenging the law might!

Using tort is just picking up a hammer! Think of proximity, does the state have a duty of care to the country at large to protect them from early release or people on bail?? Even in the unlikely even it did, the third limb is to satisfy public policy grounds, surely any argument in tort would fall there.

I could be wrong, we'll see if the more experenced guys have another outlook or idea!

Procrastastudy

I think that's what the HoL is saying in Hill - that the proximity is satified by direct omissions.

A bit OT but what confuses me is that Healy notes after Osman v UK - The Brooks case was decided without resorting to the immunity reasoning - which the Irish Courts periodically revert to. I thought immunity was a non-issue here owing to the constitution?

BornToKill

Tort and the limits of the responsibilities of the State were partially examined by the Supreme Court in Hayes v. Minister for Finance. Short summary here.

charlemont

A family in south Tipp got compensation back in the 90's as they were involved in an altercation with a chap who was on Temporary Release, The chap had assaulted 3 members of the same family and when the case was in court the judge told them they were now free to sue the state and they did !!

Procrastastudy

I think there is some statutory compensation scheme in the UK - open to correction on that.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I think there is some statutory compensation scheme in the UK - open to correction on that.

As there is also in Ireland, http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Criminal_Injuries_Compensation_Scheme

NoQuarter

ResearchWill wrote: »

As there is also in Ireland, http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Criminal_Injuries_Compensation_Scheme

Had a feeling tort law wasnt the answer. Interesting to know about this!

Procrastastudy

As I say Tort is one avenue how ever far fetched - I think in the specific circumstances you could show the elements of negligence you'd be in with a shot. The 1 in a billion times thats going to happen.

If not Tort what do you suggest?

I suppose for the benefit of the OP Tort doesn't really punish anyone it merely compensates the victim.

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

As I say Tort is one avenue how ever far fetched - I think in the specific circumstances you could show the elements of negligence you'd be in with a shot. The 1 in a billion times thats going to happen.

If not Tort what do you suggest?

I had an equally bad (imo) suggestion in my first post! I had no good suggestions, but I dont need them now as RW told me the answer

Procrastastudy

NoQuarter wrote: »

I had an equally bad (imo) suggestion in my first post! I had no good suggestions, but I dont need them now as RW told me the answer

I'm not sure RWs post really answers the OPs question - although saying that I suppose Tort doesn't either - unless punitive damages were awarded.

It answers mine however so thank you RW!

McCrack

I think scope to sue the State exists but only in certain circumstances. Judicial decisions (convictions given) & Executive decisions (Parole) I can't see being used to ground an action. TR by the prison authorities I'm not sure.

I do think for example if there are warrants out for a person and that person commits an offence and it can be shown that the Gardai never made any attempts to find and arrest the person or indeed came into contact and failed to execute the warrant then I think the victim would have at least a stateable case to sue the State.

The CICT has very strict criteria and from memory will not pay general damages but only out of pocket expenses.